Digital Manipulation

[MikeOxon]

Recent discussion in another forum on this site has highlighted the 'problem' of digital manipulation of photos. Rather than pursue the discussion in the context of a single image, I suggest that ths subject merits a thread of its own.

Some form of darkroom manipulation has always been a part of photography, and the old techniques of 'dodging' and 'burning' have their couterparts in digital imaging. On my website I state that "I do not subscribe to the view that the picture must be made in the camera and believe that the subsequent processing of the image is a key part of photography."

Some degree of processing is almost always necessary to make the most of the data from a digital camera. Clever as these are, they can only 'guess' at what the photographer intended, in terms of white balance and exposure. Colour saturation is often also a matter of personal taste. The colours in the original scene may not look correct in a small image, where juxtapositions of closely placed areas of colour strongly affect our perception. The following image shows how our perception of colour can be influenced in this way; the marked squares are identical in colour and brightness, only their context makes them look different:

http://www.lottolab.org/
shown for information only

I find that one advantage of digital photography is that one can assess the image very shortly after taking it, while the impression of the original scene is still current. I try to re-capture this original impression when I process an image.

In the case of competitions, then it is important to abide by whatever rules are imposed. Sometimes this is difficult to interpret, since all digital images are 'processed' to some extent - by the camera settings or by the RAW to jpeg converter settings - even if no additional user-controlled processing is applied.

It is, in my opinion, quite different when images are for display. In such cases, one wants to make the most of the image. Corrections to limitations imposed by the photographic medium (such as the limited dynamic range of a photograph) are, in my opinion, totally justified in this context. Corrections to composition, by adjustment of the framing or removal of irritating artefacts (TV aerials, stray branches, etc) are also, in my opinion, justified. 'Seeing' what is needed to make a good composition is as important at the processing stage as when taking the original photo.

It is different again, when the photo is used as a scientific illustration - such as a butterfly aberration - when it is very important that the processing does not falsify the key feature that is being described.

These are all different situations and I believe that different 'rules' apply in each case. I shall be interested to read what others think.

[Gruditch]

I agree with every point you make here Mike, but I like to call my post processing " Digital Editing ".

In my book Digital Manipulation only occurs when someone adds content, that wasn't in the original image.
For example, someone take a really good landscape shot, but then realising there is something missing, clones a deer in. That's a no no for me.

Regards Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

Or call it the "Digital Darkroom.

Yes, I am quite happy (for example) to lighten shadows to avoid that blackness which the eye didn't see as pure black. For landscape shots I ALWAYS straighten the horizon although I attempt to get that level in the first place. A leaning back building MIGHT have to have the verticals corrected. However but my normal technique, a hangover from the days of film, is to take the photo in the portrait mode but make sure that the centre of the frame is aimed at the true horizon; in other words, the plane of the film/sensor is vertical. I get a lot of unwanted foreground of course, but that is easily cropped out, a quicker process than correcting leaning verticals

But I rarely add something that wasn't in the original, although - and what an admission this is - I have been known to repair a slightly torn butterfly wing

Jack

[Goldie M]

Me too Jack Goldie M

[ChrisC]

as anyone who has looked at my flickr pages will see, i don't manipulate my photos at all, i'll crop occaisionally on UKB but as soon as sharpen or blurring backgrounds or cloning takes place, for me it ceases to be the photo i took. what you see is what i took. i must add that i have no problem with those that do either. i have looked on awe at the photography workshops as fishee does his part. but it's just not for me i'm afraid. but then again the photos aren't really for display purposes, more to get me motivated to take the time to watch these wonderful creatures up close and capture memories.

[Pete Eeles]

I'm with you 100% Chris. I've never added, or removed, anything from a photo. Although I do remove dust spots. And I make "tweaks" on almost all shots - recomposing, lightening/darkening, colour contrast, sharpening etc.

But I like to consider myself a naturalist first, photographer second (as my inadequate technique undoubtedly shows ). Spending hours in front of a computer "working" on every image just isn't for me - I spend enough of my time in front of a computer as it is! Although I do admire the results that some achieve. I'll never win a photo competition - and I don't care

Cheers,

- Pete

[David M]

Jeez, some of you guys are operating in a different dimension to peasants like me.

I wouldn't even know how to add/remove something from a photo, and although I usually crop my butterfly shots (and have even occasionally adjusted the contrast/brightness by 5% or so where it has been necessary) I fear doing anything more would end up making them look even worse than they actually are (which is moderate at best and unusable at worst).

Good discussion though, and I suppose like any art, photography is a discipline where each individual has his/her own signature to bring to bear.

[Gruditch]

but as soon as sharpen or blurring backgrounds or cloning takes place, for me it ceases to be the photo i took. what you see is what i took

With a DSLR, you don't get a sharp image straight from the camera, the whole idea is that you sharpen to your desired effect in post processing. Blurring of the background is done it camera.

I've never added, or removed, anything from a photo

I don't add to pictures either, but in landscape photography, there is often some numpty that has to be cloned out the shot. With half of Europe living on these shores, you could wait for ever to get a shot with no one in it. I don't know why people envisage that you have to spend so much time editing an image. Once you know you programme back to front, its a couple of minuets max.

Regards Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

With a DSLR, you don't get a sharp image straight from the camera, the whole idea is that you sharpen to your desired effect in post processing.

Unless you don't shoot in RAW of course, in which case sharpness, contrast etc. are set to the desired effect in camera... although perhaps not as good as can be achieved using RAW(according to reviews I read)...but who does that?

[Gruditch]

Desired effect yes, but not the finished article, have you seen what an image looks like if you crank right up with the in camera sharpening.

Regards Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I'm sure the camera gives the ability to overdo it just as it does in photoshop

I was just pointing out that an SLR can still do what a compact can if you want it to. You don't HAVE to use RAW and get soft, dull flat images

[Gruditch]

You know better than to mention DSLR's, and compacts in the same sentence.

As for processing, this may put the cat among the pigeons. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Regards Gruditch

[dilettante]

As for processing, this may put the cat among the pigeons. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Call me a pigeon, but Ken Rockwell? Seriously?

[ChrisC]

Unless you don't shoot in RAW of course, in which case sharpness, contrast etc. are set to the desired effect in camera... although perhaps not as good as can be achieved using RAW(according to reviews I read)...but who does that?

ermmmm . . . . me

[Michaeljf]

But I like to consider myself a naturalist first, photographer second (as my inadequate technique undoubtedly shows ). Spending hours in front of a computer "working" on every image just isn't for me - I spend enough of my time in front of a computer as it is! - Pete

I couldn't agree more. And particularly for those that work in offices, even working on something you like at the computer in the evening can sometimes become too much like a chore.

Regarding RAW images, for a period I shot everything in RAW and then would have to convert half the images to JPG afterwards, losing a lot of my life to processing. Now I shoot in RAW and JPG at the same time (RAW on a bigger file, JPG on a medium size) so if I have a good photograph I can always post-process from the RAW to get the best image, but I can quickly see my JPG images straight off without having to process them. It means I have got half of my time back! There's nothing worse than enjoying going out and then thinking that if you don't catch up with the work after a day or so you've got loads of processing to do.

n.b. Pete - you are far too modest about your work.

I am always interested in what sort of other images other people show on here. There are plenty of images that are of a really high standard: and I am impressed by some of the post-processing that goes on. I can't stand photoshop and it's not for me, though good quality images are always impressive no matter what the process is. Also, people clearly have 'different styles'. Just keep in mind that because ten people use the same style it doesn't mean you need to follow suit...

Sometimes I wish I could take 'a strand of grass out' here and there with photoshop, but really, I should take more care when I take the photograph.

Michael

[Dave McCormick]

I'm with you 100% Chris. I've never added, or removed, anything from a photo. Although I do remove dust spots. And I make "tweaks" on almost all shots - recomposing, lightening/darkening, colour contrast, sharpening etc

Same here, do pretty much what you do. I pretty much consider myself a photographer first, editor second, either I get the best shot I can or keep or just make do with the best one I did take, don't try to manipulate the image to look as if I did better. I do three things: Record Shot, Shoot Shoot Shoot (that is taking lots of photos and hope one is good enough, if its of a subject that moves such as a butterfly) and finally line up and get that one best shot if I can (not always easy with moving subjects)

However this is my only exception with this Clay-Triple Lines I took photo of. The tree twig in background was distracting so removed it and removed the bud you can see under its wing, I'd never normally do this.

Before editing:

Clay-Triple Lines Female (Unedited)

After editing:

Clay-Triple Lines Female (Edited)